[2025:JHHC:26650] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5047 of 2025 Deepak Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Sri Bisheshwar Sah, resident of House No. C-2/17 A, Bhagwati Garden Extension, Near Ram Mandir, Uttam Nagar, PO & PS: Uttam Nagar, District- Dwarka (New Delhi)-110059 presently residing at Village: Ormanjhi, PO & PS: Ormanjhi, District- Ranchi. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Trishna Sagar, Advocate. : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate. ------ 03/ 02.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bermo P.S. Case No. 60 of 2023, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false in nature. She submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of two firms namely Sri Sai Agro Trading Company and Sidhi Vinayak Agro Enterprises and the rice has been supplied to the informant to the tune of Rs. 27,09,000/-, out of which, the informant has paid Rs. 25 lakhs and further Rs. 2,09000/- is still outstanding against the informant. She further submits that in these backgrounds, the present case has been lodged by the informant. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the [2025:JHHC:26650] -2- prayer and submits that even the petitioner has replied the notice and the plea has been taken in that reply to the notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. that the rice has been sold to the informant. He submits that the Investigating Officer has found that the challans produced by the petitioner were forged one. He further submits that it appears that the said amount of Rs. 25 lakhs has been transferred to the petitioner herein by the informant for purchase of the one piece of land. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant has adopted the argument of the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. He submits that the case has been developed by the petitioner by way of giving reply of the notice issued under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C., however, the Investigating officer has found the challans to be forged one and the Investigating officer has further found that the petitioner has committed mischief. 6. In view of the above, I am not inclined to provide privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-